Is loan waiver a panacea for rural distress?

It’s easy to construct climate disasters. You just find a current, disconcerting trend and project it into the future, while ignoring everything humanity could do to adapt. For instance, one widely reported study found that heat waves could kill thousands more Americans by the end of the century if global warming continues apace—but only if you assume people won’t use more air conditioning. Yes, the climate is likely to change, but so is human behavior in response.

Every day, policymakers around the world face a dizzying array of choices. The more they spend on, say, education, the less there is to run hospitals, fight pollution or boost agricultural productivity. Lobby groups, activists and the media promote certain causes — solar panels, the Zika virus, closing tax loopholes immediately — while less fashionable issues, such as nutrition or non-communicable diseases, can slip beneath the radar.

Current climate action is more costly than inaction, even if politicians were smart. Bjorn Lomborg recently gave testimony to the US Senate in regard to the economic and budgetary consequences of climate change.The cost of climate action is likely to cost at least twice as much as climate inaction in this century. Lomborg presented how green energy research could show a way out of this dilemma.